It is very easy for me to say I told you so, or for me to be a Monday morning quarterback on predicting the discriminatory affects that Washington State Voter Initiative Measure No. 200 would have on the basic Civil Rights of African Americans and People of Color in Washington State. The reason it would be so easy for me is that I was on the front line in the real fight to oppose this insidious undermining action to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America by the Klu Klux Klan in an effort to STEAL the ECONOMIC Civil Rights of African Americans. Yes, I said the Klu Klux Klan in the State of Washington, imported up from the State of California through a surrogate bought and paid for “Handkerchief-Head Negro” name Ward Connerly.
I actually filed a Federal Government complaint against Ward Connerly with the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for falsely self-certifying his company as a minority-firm in order to receive the then U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Section 8 A status as a disadvantaged minority firm. At that time 8-A eligibility required the firm to be fifty-one percent (51%) minority in order to participate. Ward Connerly self certified even though he stated under penalty of perjury that his European American wife was a fifty percent (50%) owner. You see, White Women have a special category under the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is called “Women!” Therefore, Ward Connerly and his wife’s firm should not have been self-certified as a 51% minority business making them eligible to receive 8 million dollars a year in contract support for eight (8) years from the California Department of Transportation (CalTran).
Anyway, back to my assertion that the Klu Klux Klan in the State of Washington, imported Voter Initiative Measure No. 200 up from the State of California through a surrogate bought and paid for “Handkerchief-Head Negro” name Ward Connerly. The official record will show that David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Imperial Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, contributed the first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) through one of his organizations to Ward Connerly to set up his bogus “anti-Civil Rights” group.
Oh, by the way, Ward Connerly will remember me from his 1998 Seattle City Club debate against the Father of Affirmative Action Dr. Arthur A. Fletcher, as one of three African American male demonstrators who symbolically stood-up and placed “White Handkerchiefs” over their heads each time he began to speak. If anything I have said is not true, let Ward Connerly sue and let’s air this laundry out in open court so that the American people can see this insidious undermining action to circumvent the Constitution by the Klu Klux Klan in an effort to STEAL the ECONOMIC Civil Rights of African Americans.
That is all this is about. Under the color of race, we have a simple petty burglary in progress in California under Proposition 209 and Washington State under Voter Initiative Measure No. 200.
I fault the Attorneys General of California and Washington for allowing such un-Constitutional subterfuge to be placed on the ballot in the first place. Any numerical majority of citizens can at any time vote to have any numerical minority of citizens disenfranchised if the U.S. Constitution allowed such voter actions.
In the State of Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire created an Issue Paper on October 16, 1998 predicting the inherit discriminatory outcome of this Washington State Voter Initiative Measure No. 200. I am taking the following excerpt of that Issue Paper’s Introduction and verbatim of her Issue No. 1 to make my point:
“INTRODUCTION
Initiative Measure No. 200 was filed as an initiative to the Legislature in 1997. Petitions in support of the measure were filed in proper form, timely, and in sufficient number to qualify the measure for certification to the 1998 session of the Legislature. The Legislature took no action on the measure, so it will appear on the 1998 general election ballot….The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the primary legal issues raised by the Initiative (called “the Initiative” or “Initiative 200”) that our clients and the attorneys who represent them need to prepare to address. This memorandum discusses, but does not answer, the questions that are raised. Only the courts can finally decide the meaning of the Initiative, and the courts may well interpret its language in light of the public debate about the measure during the next two months.… This memorandum discusses those legal issues which would likely affect many different agencies. Individual agencies and institutions will no doubt have additional issues, specific to their activities, to examine if the Initiative is approved. We will caution the state agencies and officers that as requested, our advice and analysis is intended to assist them state agencies and officers to carry out their duties and not to influence public debate take a position on the Initiative.
ISSUE NO. 1 Interpreting The Language Of The Initiative, Particularly “Discriminate” And “Preferential Treatment” A. The Prohibition On “Discrimination” Overlaps Existing Law. The heart of Initiative 200 depends on the interpretation of two terms found in section 1 (1): “discriminate“ and “preferential treatment.” The first of these terms “discriminate” has a history of statutory and case law interpretation. RCW 49.60 is designated as the “law against discrimination” (RCW 49.60.010), and RCW 49.60.030 preserves “[t]he right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained guide dog or service animal by a disabled person”. RCW 49.60.010 explicitly covers “employment,” and the chapter may by implication cover some examples of public education and contracting as well. As to “discrimination” then, the Initiative at least partly overlaps current statutory law.”
I, with full depth of conscientiousness, blame the Governor, Gary Locke and his Attorney General, Christine Gregoire for not having the moral fortitude to even challenge the Constitutionality of Initiative 200 within the TWO (2) MONTH period following its passage on November 3, 1998 as eluded to in her Issue Paper of October 16, 1998.
What would have been the results? Would the courts have found that the Initiative Measure No. 200 to be unconstitutional, as it did another Initiative Measure offered by the same person. Oh, but the other Initiative Measure was not to the Governor, Gary Locke and his Attorney General, Christine Gregoire’s liking, so the State of Washington marshaled its vast resources to challenge it.
HUH. But when the non-profit African American business advocacy organization the Pacific Northwest Chapter National Black Chamber of Commerce (PNCNBCC) brought a Law Suit No. C01-1208L in United States Federal District Court in Seattle in-part against Initiative Measure No. 200; that same Governor, Gary Locke and his Attorney General, Christine Gregoire marshaled the same vast resources of the State of Washington to oppose the PNCNBCC’s challenge of the Un-Constitutionality and the Predictable Discriminatory Outcome of I-200.
GO FIGURE!!!
From Governor, Gary Locke and his Attorney General, Christine Gregoire’s Motion to Dismiss in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik stated in his Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss that “Defendants’ general standing argument is not well taken. “Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association (PNCNBCC) may have standing solely as the representative of its members….”
Through “Hook or Crook”, because the PNCNBCC lost its attorney one (1) day before the Class Action Certification hearing which was immediately after the statutorily required initial settlement conference with Defendant Governor, Gary Locke’s Attorney General, Christine Gregoire’s representative; Judge Lasnik further stated that “Plaintiffs (PNCNBCC) unsupported contention that there are nine individuals who are willing to participate as named plaintiffs and the inadmissible exhibits (proof and evidence of intentional discrimination) attached to plaintiffs opposition have not been considered in ruling on this motion.”
With such “Hook or Crook” activities going on behind the scenes, Judge Lasnik still only dismissed PNCNBCC’s three (3) claims under the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, taking away any monetary judgments and the criminal penalties for violations by Defendant Governor, Gary Locke and his co-defendants.
More importantly, Judge Lasnik concluded regarding the other five (5) causes of action brought by PNCNBCC that: “Plaintiffs’ may, however, proceed on their claims of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Washington Law Against Discrimination, and Violations of Seattle City Ordinance 119601. They may also contest the constitutionality of Initiative 200.”
Trial was set in Federal District Court in Seattle for January 5, 2004, but the PNCNBCC was not able to attract any competent legal counsel and without response allowed the case to be dismissed without prejudice. So it can be re-brought.
Notwithstanding all other things said in this writing; whereas before I-200 in 1998 African Americans were receiving 2.63% of all Construction Contracts below $500,000, as of June 4, 2003 all minorities plus White women combined in the State of Washington in 2002 received only 1.5% of State of Washington expenditures.
These facts are absolutely pitiful in light of the fact that the current office holders allowing this disparity to take place received almost 100% of Washington State’s African American Community’s vote. If that is not in Your Face, I don’t know!
Now comes that same duplicitous Attorney General, Christine Gregoire’s asking the majority democratically voting African American Community to vote for her and help make her Washington’s newest Democratic Governor.
Some African Americans were born at night Attorney General, Christine
Gregoire, but not LAST NIGHT! Don’t count on this Black vote. You had better
get your vote from the Klu Klux Klan!
Attachments: Hyperlinked Below:
1.PNCNBCC January 5, 1999 Complaint Letter to WA AG Christine Gregoire
2.Attorney General Christine Gregoire Non-Response of January 22, 1999
3.District Court Case No. C01-1208L Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss
4.The Facts News Article: June 4, 2003 Addressing Disparity in Minority Contracting
1.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 1.rtf
2.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 1a.rtf
3.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 1b.rtf
4.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 1c.rtf
5.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 2.rtf
6.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 3.rtf
7.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 4.rtf
8.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 5.rtf
9.Title VI I-200 LawSuit 6.rtf
10.Title VI I-200 Law Suit 7.rtf
Best Regards,
John Eddie “J.J.” Jones, 2nd Vice President/Title VI Specialist
